6 ms·

Ok. Lets assume this is true. (Note: I'm biased in that I accept this as true) So, as someone who has possibly implemented racist/sexist/ageist algorithms, how

Ok. Lets assume this is true. (Note: I'm biased in that I accept this as true) So, as someone who has possibly implemented racist/sexist/ageist algorithms, how do I: 1. Detect if I'm running a said algorithm (whats the % racism/sexism/ageism I can do before bad?) 2. Run an open dataset to detect said problems 3. Prevent overfit with the proposed dataset from #2 4. Correct said algorithm to reduce bias What's my way forward here? How do I do my part and take part in the solution? What percent of unintended racisms/sexism/ageism is allowed before being considered illegal? (worried this article will be flagged, but the nuts and bolts implementation discussion needs done.. and we're the implementers )

chrisco255 8y ago
It did get flagged but I agree with your point on discussing it being important.
tunesmith 8y ago
Not sure you can do it mathematically/statistically, or at least you can't guarantee that, and I think that's part of the point of the critique. What's better is to explicitly justify the reasons behind why the algorithm was written/used, surface the assumptions, and periodically/regularly challenge those assumptions to see if they are still true. For example, a bunch of like-minded settlers settle a new geographical area, and then make governmental decisions via some fair consensus algorithm among the people in the government. The surrounding population gets more diverse. The government continues to make decisions the same way it always has, using the same people. The algorithm is sound, but the underlying assumption (that the algorithm/government fairly represents the surrounding population) has become wrong over time.
paganel 8y ago
> What's my way forward here? How do I do my part and take part in the solution? Maybe not the answer you wanted, but the best solution would be to let go of implementing AI algorithms altogether. The second best thing that we can do is to try and sabotage/sap the system from the inside (by "we" I mean us, the programmers and the data people involved in implementing these algorithms). You cannot "correct" a system like this using feedback loops and the like, because the system would over-correct and would follow new paths we didn't even thought had been possible. And yes, I'm a hard determinist [1] and proud to be one: > Hard determinists would view technology as developing independent from social concerns. They would say that technology creates a set of powerful forces acting to regulate our social activity and its meaning. According to this view of determinism we organize ourselves to meet the needs of technology and the outcome of this organization is beyond our control or we do not have the freedom to make a choice regarding the outcome (autonomous technology) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism#Hard_and_soft_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism#Hard...

chrisco255 8y ago

It did get flagged but I agree with your point on discussing it being important.

tunesmith 8y ago

Not sure you can do it mathematically/statistically, or at least you can't guarantee that, and I think that's part of the point of the critique. What's better is to explicitly justify the reasons behind why the algorithm was written/used, surface the assumptions, and periodically/regularly challenge those assumptions to see if they are still true. For example, a bunch of like-minded settlers settle a new geographical area, and then make governmental decisions via some fair consensus algorithm among the people in the government. The surrounding population gets more diverse. The government continues to make decisions the same way it always has, using the same people. The algorithm is sound, but the underlying assumption (that the algorithm/government fairly represents the surrounding population) has become wrong over time.

paganel 8y ago

> What's my way forward here? How do I do my part and take part in the solution? Maybe not the answer you wanted, but the best solution would be to let go of implementing AI algorithms altogether. The second best thing that we can do is to try and sabotage/sap the system from the inside (by "we" I mean us, the programmers and the data people involved in implementing these algorithms). You cannot "correct" a system like this using feedback loops and the like, because the system would over-correct and would follow new paths we didn't even thought had been possible. And yes, I'm a hard determinist [1] and proud to be one: > Hard determinists would view technology as developing independent from social concerns. They would say that technology creates a set of powerful forces acting to regulate our social activity and its meaning. According to this view of determinism we organize ourselves to meet the needs of technology and the outcome of this organization is beyond our control or we do not have the freedom to make a choice regarding the outcome (autonomous technology) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism#Hard_and_soft_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism#Hard...